If money talks then Dr Paul is getting plenty of it! Of all the republican potential candidates; he is probably the least reprehensible?
And so far out in front of billionaire corporate raider Romney; as a fund raiser, that these two could wind up squaring off in the final round?
We live in interesting times. One hopes someone can take it up to the president and force him to explain, why the change we can all believe in, is still just a glib mantra, rather than policy and future vision?
Not that it's all down to him; but rather, an incredibly lack lustre congress/senate, who most of the time seem to have been less than helpful; or, unable to lift the gaze; to contemplate national objectives?

I must confess, that until recently, I had considered Ron Paul to be a loudmouth nutter, with his head so far up his fundamental orifice he needed a window in his stomach to see where he is going.

But lately, I have come to regard him as a loudmouth nutter, who actually has a chance to challenge for the presidency.

And I say, bring it on!

There are two conceivable outcomes. The first, and most likely, is that his candidacy will be an absolute godsend for Obama, who will put him away like Johnson put away Goldwater back in 1964. That actually might be the best outcome for the Republicans - as Wikipedia observes, "the defeat of so many older Republicans in 1964 also cleared the way for a younger generation of American conservatives to mobilize." One of the blindingly obvious aspects of these Primaries is that the Republican talent pool is horribly shallow.

Of course, the other possibility is that he will be elected, an occurrence that could single-handedly bring about the instant demise of the USA as a world power. I only say "could", because the likelihood of his getting any of his zany ideas implemented in the sclerotic system of patronage and windbaggery that is the US Administration, is next to zero. In which case the damage would not be the implementation of his policies, which would be instantly destructive*, but the image of impotence and fiscal idiocy that his presidency would project to the rest of the world.

So, for a year full of fun and frolics, I say - Ron Paul for the Republican candidacy!!

*for an idea of how destructive, think "gold standard", and work from there.

“The killing of large numbers of people by US forces would not stop under Paul.”

David, in case you haven’t noticed, these wars are being conducted under the authority of the US government. And you support that, remember? The corporations profiting from that are profiting from the policies of mass killing and destruction that you support, remember?

Paul’s proposal is to end these wars. What excuse have you got for supporting them instead of opposing them?

“The US military would be curbed but replaced by private armies hired by the corporations and serving corporate interests.”

Here you are either being confused, or dishonest. How do you derive from the fact that Paul’s policy is to stop the wars, the ridiculous claim that the US military would be replaced by private armies?

“This would be in accordance with Paul's philosophy which would remove government restrictions on violations of human rights …”

Here you fall back to blatant untruth. Paul’s platform is based on
1. peace – stopping the wars and withdrawing the troops
2. sound money – ending the Fed
3. freedom – ending the unconstitutional departments and laws including the police state fascism.

Either cite evidence in Paul’s policies for your absurd claim or admit you are wrong.

“and government restrictions on corporate activity.”

You have not shown any reason why government should be restricting consensual activities that do not infringe the personal or property rights of others.

Most importantly, when you look at corporate wrongdoing, you don’t make the connection between the policies you support, and the fascist results they produce.

Paul’s policy is to stop government’s monetary shenanigans channeling trillions from ordinary people to big banks and big corporations – and you’re opposed to that policy!

“There is already a precedent for this in the private security forces in Iraq.”

A precedent under the dispensation you support and Paul opposes.

Why is it not a solution to this problem to stop the wars? How can you possibly oppose such a policy in favour of more killings?

Sir Vivor
It is unclear what point you are trying to make by your quote of Ron Paul.

Paul says:
“The alternatives [to liberty] lead to chaos, plunder, and destruction. Free trade and honest money, being gold and silver coin, is the foundation of civilization under the laws of nature and nature's God.”

And here we have the socialists arguing IN FAVOUR OF:
• endless aggressive wars abroad
• a fascist police state at home
• monopoly government control of the money supply that works by channelling massive wealth from the 99 percent to the big banks and corporations
• an extensive and intensive regulatory regime - tax, superannuation, medical, consumer protection, environmental etc. - which , contrary to the *dreams* of the socialists, have the *actual* effect of entrenching the privileges of the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

What’s your point? That Ron Paul is right, and his opponents are fascists? Because that’s what you’re proving.

“How does a "Ron Paul libertarian" avoid becoming a useful idiot, for the corporate interests that rule America …?”

1. By ending government’s monopoly control of the money supply, which operates by cartelizing the banks and granting them a licence to print money, channeling cheap credit to big corporations paid for by ripping off the working population and the poor at the rate of inflation.
2. By ending unconstitutional laws whose restrictions work to entrench the privileges of big corporations, exclude competition from small businesses, and cause unemployment, poverty and social disadvantage
3. By ending the wars which overwhelmingly serve the interests of the military-industrial complex - not because “corporations rule”, but because people like you support the ideology of unlimited government power!

Well, Sir Vivor? More to the point, how do *you* deny being a useful idiot for corporate interests?

The glaring flaw in the left wing argument is to ignore the fascist effect of the policies they support.

I challenge the socialists to deal with the real libertarian arguments, instead of the misrepresentations and untruths they have satisfied themselves with so far.

Peter Hume wrote: "Here you are either being confused, or dishonest. How do you derive from the fact that Paul’s policy is to stop the wars, the ridiculous claim that the US military would be replaced by private armies?"

Paul's policy is not to stop the wars. Paul's policy is to end US government involvement in them. His policy is also to eliminate government overseeing the activity of corporations and to limit US government international involvement.

That would privatise wars and allow corporations to hire private armies to advance their ends. It isn't ridiculous. It logically follows.

It returns us to an earlier time where such private entities as the British East India Corporation extended the British Empire.

Let's not accuse each other of being dishonest. Cut out the crap. I call it as I see it.

There are three fundamental reasons why the US people should vote for Ron Paul.He is totally honest and cannot be corrupted.He wants to restore the US Constitution and End the US Federal Reserve, the instigators of wars and the depressions and the GFC.

Even if the American people don't like some of his policies,the restoration of the US Constitution gives people the freedom of far more choice.At the moment they have no choice.The banksters are raping our economies and driving us perilously close to nuke wars with Russia and China.That is the reality.